This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-11-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In its Memorandum[31] dated March 14, 2012, the OCA found that the conclusions of fact of Judge Contreras are duly supported by evidence on record. The OCA agreed with said findings except for the recommended penalty. Invoking our ruling in Anico v. Pilipiña,[32] the OCA opined that respondent's act of soliciting money from complainant constituted serious misconduct. The OCA added that such was further aggravated by respondent's act of receiving the amount of P20,000 and his failure to turn over said amount to the OCC, which is an act of misappropriation of funds amounting to dishonesty. Thus, the OCA recommended, among others, that respondent be found guilty of Serious Misconduct and Dishonesty and be ordered dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. | |||||